[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/FilletArt filletart.rst
From: |
Tuomas J. Lukka |
Subject: |
[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/FilletArt filletart.rst |
Date: |
Sat, 10 May 2003 15:25:49 -0400 |
CVSROOT: /cvsroot/gzz
Module name: manuscripts
Changes by: Tuomas J. Lukka <address@hidden> 03/05/10 15:25:48
Modified files:
FilletArt : filletart.rst
Log message:
edit
CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst.diff?tr1=1.5&tr2=1.6&r1=text&r2=text
Patches:
Index: manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst
diff -u manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst:1.5
manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst:1.6
--- manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst:1.5 Sat May 10 15:19:28 2003
+++ manuscripts/FilletArt/filletart.rst Sat May 10 15:25:48 2003
@@ -70,11 +70,15 @@
grouping of the node and the connection.
The only disruptions in a fillet graph will be when the connections cross
-each other. Line crossing is one serious factor making it hard to read
-complex node-link graphs. With fillets, tracing a connection is
+each other.
+This makes a complex filleted graph is far easier to read than a box-line
+graph, because in box-line graphs disruptions occur not only at line crossings
+but also where the lines connect to the boxes, making the two situations
+hard to distinguish.
+With fillets, tracing a connection is
perceptually easy even if it crosses with other connections.
-We tested the easiness of perceiving fillets in a controlled laboratory
+We tested the ease of perceiving fillets in a controlled laboratory
experiment with ten naïve participants. Eight different graphs were
tested, of which one was implemented with "perfect" fillets. The other
seven graphs were "incomplete" fillets or different common node-link